U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The Relationship between
Wildlife Watchers,
Hunters, and Anglers
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-7
The Relationship between
Wildlife Watchers,
Hunters, and Anglers
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-7
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
March 2005
Jerry Leonard
Division of Federal Assistance
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arlington VA
This report is intended to complement the National and State Reports for the
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
The conclusions in this report are the author’s and do not represent official positions
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The author thanks Sylvia Cabrera, Richard Aiken, Natalia Perez, Jim Greer, and
Dave Buschena for valuable input into this report.
2 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Data and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Part One—Wildlife-Watching Participation by Sportsperson Classification . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Wildlife Watching Nationally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Wildlife Watching by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Part Two—Socioeconomic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Comparison of Wildlife Watchers and Sportspersons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Characteristics of Different Recreationist Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Implication of Demographic Change on Wildlife-Related Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Part Three—Expenditures by Type of Recreationist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Part Four—Historical Fishing and Hunting Activity of Wildlife Watchers . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Part Five—Wildlife-Watching Participation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Calculated Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A. Wildlife-Watching Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B. Wildlife-Watching Days by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C. Selected Characteristics of Wildlife Watchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
D. Expenditures for Wildlife Watching and Sporting Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Contents
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 3
Introduction
In 2001 there were 82 million U.S.
residents 16 years old and older
who participated in wildlife-related
recreation. This total of wildlife-related
recreationists is often split into two
different types: non-consumptive
and consumptive. Non-consumptive
recreation includes activities such as
feeding, observing, or photographing
wildlife. Consumptive recreation
includes both hunting and fishing. In
2001 participants in non-consumptive
activities, who are often referred to as
wildlife watchers, totaled 66.1 million,
and participants in consumptive
activities, who are often referred to as
sportspersons, totaled 37.8 million.
A graphical representation of
consumptive and non-consumptive
recreationists is presented in Figure 1.
54% of wildlife-related recreationists
were wildlife watchers only, 19% were
sportspersons only, and 27% were both
wildlife watchers and sportspersons.
The populations of consumptive and non-consumptive
recreationists are certainly
interrelated. Both share a mutual
concern and appreciation for the outdoors
and wildlife resources. Moreover, there
are a relatively large number who
participate in both non-consumptive and
consumptive recreation.
Of the 37.8 million sportspersons (anglers
and hunters) nearly 22 million were also
wildlife watchers in 2001. To some that
feel sportspersons and watchers have few
common interests, this statistic may come
as a surprise. Pick a sportsperson at
random and there is nearly a 60% chance
that he or she will also be a wildlife
watcher. Or, put another way, only about
4 in 10 sportspersons will not participate
in any wildlife watching.
Despite the interrelationship, the two
groups are sometimes considered or
treated as separate and distinct by
professionals involved with wildlife
recreation from a management,
marketing, advocacy, or academic
perspective. The notion of separate and
distinctive groups of recreationists is
due in part to the existence of interest
groups who represent each group nearly
exclusively. These interest groups
sometimes have divergent opinions
about resource management objectives;
and, when conflict arises, both sides can
become emphatically opposed to one
another.
To be sure, besides their sometimes
differing resource management
objectives, there are other important
differences between the two groups.
For example, there are some notable
differences in their socioeconomic
characteristics. The proportion of
the U.S. population who participates
in wildlife watching tends to go up
with age, whereas the proportion who
participates in sporting activities,
i.e., hunting or fishing, tends to go
down. When considered in conjunction
with information about ongoing
demographic changes in the U.S., these
socioeconomic characteristics have
important implications about recreation
participation in the future.
This report seeks to broaden the
understanding of the interrelationship
between consumptive and non-consumptive
recreationists through
the following objectives. Analyze
sportspersons participation in wildlife
watching. In other words, segment
total wildlife-watching participants
by sportsperson classification i.e.,
whether they also participated in
hunting and fishing. After segmenting
wildlife-watching participants by
Figure 1. Wildlife-Related Recreationists, by Type of Activity: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older.)
Note: Sportspersons are hunters and anglers. Wildlife watchers are observers, photographers, and
feeders of wildlife.
􀀳􃌀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀁔􅐀􀁓􅌀􀁐􅀀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁓􅌀
􀀴􃐀􀁑􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁑􅄀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀀰􃀀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁚􅨀
􀀒􁈀􀀖􁘀􀀏􀼀􀀚􁨀􀀁􀄀􀁎􄸀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀀸􃠀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀀸􃠀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀀰􃀀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁚􅨀
􀀕􁔀􀀕􁔀􀀏􀼀􀀓􁌀􀀁􀄀􀁎􄸀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏��
􀀴􃐀􀁑􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁑􅄀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀
􀀸􃠀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀀸􃠀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀓􁌀􀀒􁈀􀀏􀼀􀀙􁤀􀀁􀄀􀁎􄸀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
����􂌀
􀀒􁈀􀀗􁜀􀀅􀔀
􀀡􂄀
􀀑􁄀􀀙􁤀􀀅􀔀
􀀢􂈀
􀀕􁔀􀀔􁐀􀀅􀔀
􀀷􃜀􀁉􄤀􀁌􄰀􀁄􄐀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀷􃜀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁃􄌀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁓􅌀
4 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
sportsperson classification, compare
the types of wildlife-watching activities
enjoyed by both groups. Compare the
socioeconomic characteristics of the
three different groups of recreationists
shown in Figure 1: wildlife watchers
exclusively, sportspersons exclusively,
and those who are both sportspersons
and wildlife watchers. The socioeconomic
characteristics compared include
population size of residence, geographic
region of residence, age, sex, ethnicity,
race, income, and education. Examine
wildlife-related recreation spending by
the three different groups. Examine
the relationship between historical
hunting/fishing participation and wildlife
watching. Lastly, examine the change
in an individual’s likelihood of wildlife-watching
participation given that he or
she participated in hunting or fishing.
Knowledge obtained through this
analysis could be useful for a variety of
reasons. Differing participation patterns
among the two groups by age and
ethnicity could indicate how aging baby
boomers and increasing urbanization
in the U.S. may affect recreation
participation in the future. Knowledge
of expenditures by the different groups
could give manufacturers a better
understanding of total sales potential for
different types of products. Knowledge
of the relationship between prior
hunting and fishing activity and wildlife
watching may foster greater consensus
about the appropriate stewardship
of resources among interest groups
or give resource managers guidance
in designing resource plans that
are capable of bringing the greatest
satisfaction to all recreationists.
Report Organization
The report is organized into five parts:
Part One: The “Wildlife Watching
Participation by Sportsperson
Classification” section examines the size
and geographic dispersion of the wildlife-watching
population by type of activity
and by sportsperson classification.
Estimates of total participation levels
and days of participation are made for
numerous aspects of around-the-home
and away-from-home wildlife watching.
Part Two: The “Socioeconomic
Characteristics” section compares the
characteristics of the three different
groups of recreationists who appear in
Figure 1: wildlife watchers exclusively,
sportspersons exclusively, and those
who are both sportspersons and wildlife
watchers.
Part Three: The “Expenditures by
Type of Recreationist” section provides
a detailed analysis of all wildlife
recreation spending by recreationist
type. Recreationists are treated as either
watchers exclusively, sportspersons
exclusively, or sportspersons and wildlife
watchers.
Part Four: The “Historical Fishing and
Hunting Activity of Wildlife Watchers”
section examines the percent of all
wildlife watchers who have participated
in hunting or fishing in the past.
Part Five: Lastly, in the “Wildlife-
Watching Participation Model” section a
logit regression model is used to examine
the impact that numerous variables have
on the probability that an individual will
participate in wildlife watching.
Data and Definitions
All reported data contained herein
are from the 2001 National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation (FHWAR).1
Consequently, all participation, dollar
expenditures, and hunting behavior
statistics are representative of 2001.
Additionally, all data represents persons
age 16 years and older.
The exact questions used to identify
wildlife watchers appear in Appendix A;
but, in summary, the following definitions
are applicable.
An away-from-home wildlife watcher is
one who took trips or outings at least one
mile from home for the primary purpose
of observing, photographing, or feeding
wildlife. Trips do not include those to
zoos, circuses, aquariums, museums, nor
those for hunting, fishing, or scouting.
An around-the-home wildlife watcher
is one who participated in one or more
of the following activities within a one
mile radius of home: photographing
any type of wildlife; feeding any type of
wildlife; visiting public parks or publicly
owned natural areas for the purpose of
observing, photographing, or feeding
wildlife; taking a special interest in
wildlife other than simply noticing
wildlife while doing other activities; or
maintaining natural areas or plantings
for the benefit of wildlife.
For the sake of brevity wildlife watchers
are often referred to simply as watchers.
The activity of wildlife watching
is referred to simply as watching.
Sportsperson activities, i.e., hunting
and fishing, are referred to simply as
sporting activities. Recreationists that
do not participate in sporting activities
are referred to as non-sportspersons.
The three recreationist groups shown
in Figure 1 are referred to as follows:
watchers only participate in wildlife
watching only; sportspersons only
participate in sporting activities only;
watchers-sportspersons participate in
both watching and sporting activities.
1 FHWAR documents are available on the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service webpage:
http://federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/
surveys.html.
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 5
Part One–Wildlife-Watching Participation
by Sportsperson Classification
Analysis of wildlife watching by
sportsperson classification reveals the
portion of nonconsumptive recreation
attributable to sportspersons and
differences in the nonconsumptive
recreation activities between
sportspersons and non-sportspersons.
Wildlife Watching Nationally
Table 1 reveals the number of
participants and days of wildlife
watching by type of activity and
sportsperson classification. It reveals
that a substantial portion of all
nonconsumptive recreationists in 2001,
33%, were also sportspersons. The
remaining percentages in column five
can be used to gauge which activities
have a comparatively higher proportion
attributable to sportspersons. For
example, a comparison of row two and
row six reveals that sportspersons
make up a substantially higher share of
participants in away-from-home than
around-the-home wildlife watching.
They make up 44% of away-from-home
watchers and 32% of around-the-home
watchers. Comparisons of percentages
are useful in determining how wildlife
watching activities of sportspersons differ
in emphasis from non-sportspersons.
Table 1 indicates little variation
in sportspersons’ share of wildlife
watching activities within the broader
around-the-home and away-from-home
classifications. The proportion
of sportspersons within all activities
classified as away from home are close to
44%. There is a slight increase in share
for feeding wildlife, 46%, and a slight
decrease in share for photographing,
42%. Interestingly, within the around-the-
home activities, the share of
sportspersons is slightly higher for
photographing wildlife.
Table 1. Wildlife-Watching Participants and Days by Type of Activity and
Sportsperson Classification: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
All
Non-
Sportspersons
Percent
of All Sportspersons
Percent
of All
Participants
All Wildlife Watching 66,105 44,263 67% 21,842 33%
Away from Home 21,823 12,190 56% 9,633 44%
Observe Wildlife 20,080 11,594 58% 8,487 42%
Photograph Wildlife 9,427 5,423 58% 4,004 43%
Feed Wildlife 7,078 3,798 54% 3,279 46%
Around the Home 62,928 42,766 68% 20,162 32%
Observe Wildlife 42,111 28,385 67% 13,726 33%
Photograph Wildlife 13,937 8,825 63% 5,113 37%
Feed Wildlife 53,988 36,757 68% 17,231 32%
Visit Public Parks or Areas 10,981 7,326 67% 3,655 33%
Maintain Plantings or
Natural Areas
13,073 8,769 67% 4,304 33%
Average Days of Participation
All Wildlife Watching 83 83 84
Away from Home 17 17 18
Observe Wildlife 15 14 16
Photograph Wildlife 8 8 9
Feed Wildlife 15 14 15
Around the Home 81 81 82
Observe Wildlife 123 124 119
Photograph Wildlife 14 14 14
Visit Public Parks or Areas 4 4 5
Total Days
All Wildlife Watching 5,488,866 3,659,767 67% 1,829,099 33%
Away from Home 372,006 201,582 54% 170,425 46%
Observe Wildlife 295,345 162,190 55% 133,155 45%
Photograph Wildlife 76,324 41,436 54% 34,888 46%
Feed Wildlife 103,307 53,043 51% 50,264 49%
Around the Home 5,116,860 3,458,186 68% 1,658,674 32%
Observe Wildlife 5,159,259 3,532,392 69% 1,626,867 32%
Photograph Wildlife 190,120 119,255 63% 70,865 37%
Visit Public Parks or Areas 225,324 141,599 63% 83,725 37%
6 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
Table 1 also shows the total days and
average days of wildlife watching around
the home and away from home. The total
number of days around the home and
away from home was 5.5 billion, and the
proportion attributable to sportspersons
is identical to that for participants, 33%.
The average days of wildlife watching
of sportspersons and non-sportspersons
are very similar. The average of
sportspersons is one to two days higher
for most types of wildlife watching.
However, it is notably 5 days lower for
observing wildlife around the home.
Table 2 displays the distribution of
away-from-home and around-the-home
watchers by species of wildlife observed.
Sportspersons and non-sportspersons
do have some apparent differences in
species viewed. For around the home,
sportspersons have an appreciably
higher concentration of watchers
who observe fish and other wildlife,
large land mammals, and reptiles or
amphibians. Sportspersons’ shares of
total participation for these species are
45%, 40%, and 39% respectively, which
is higher than their overall around-the-home
share of 32%. Sportspersons also
have a relatively higher than average
share of participants observing large
land mammals and fish away from home,
where their shares of total participants
are 47% and 48% respectively.
Additionally, at 47%, sportspersons
have a higher share of away-from-home
watchers of “Other Birds.”
In summary, whether from a days or total
participants perspective, sportspersons
comprise a substantial portion of wildlife
watching. Further, the information in
Tables 1 and 2 reveals that sportspersons
and non-sportspersons have very slight
differences in the average number of
days across all types of watching, but
there are some apparent differences
in species observed. Sportspersons
have a relatively higher proportion of
participants who observe large land
mammals and fish.
Table 2. Participants in Wildlife Watching by Species and Sportsperson
Classification: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
All
Non-
Sportspersons
Percent
of All Sportspersons
Percent
of All
Away from Home, Total 21,823 12,190 56% 9,633 44%
Total Birds 18,580 10,987 59% 7,593 41%
Birds of Prey 12,495 7,176 57% 5,319 43%
Waterfowl 14,432 8,477 59% 5,955 41%
Water Birds 10,314 6,089 59% 4,225 41%
Songbirds 12,878 7,633 59% 5,245 41%
Other Birds 7,907 4,211 53% 3,695 47%
Total Land Mammals 15,506 8,612 56% 6,894 45%
Large Land Mammals 12,226 6,485 53% 5,741 47%
Small Land Mammals 12,958 7,500 58% 5,458 42%
Fish 6,330 3,290 52% 3,040 48%
Marine Mammals 3,013 2,016 67% 997 33%
Other Wildlife 9,409 5,604 60% 3,805 40%
Around the Home, Total 62,928 42,766 68% 20,162 32%
Birds 40,306 27,377 68% 12,929 32%
Large Land Mammals 17,481 10,548 60% 6,933 40%
Small Land Mammals 32,747 22,254 68% 10,494 32%
Reptiles or Amphibians 9,773 5,975 61% 3,798 39%
Insects 13,835 9,195 66% 4,640 34%
Fish or Other Wildlife 7,932 4,324 55% 3,609 45%
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 7
Wildlife Watching by State
Tables 3, 4, and 5 reveal the number of
watchers by sportsperson classification
and state where watching occurred.
Table 3 presents the state distribution of
away-from-home watchers, and Table 4
presents the state distribution of around-the-
home watchers. Table 5 presents
the total recreationists by type shown in
Figure 1: watchers only, sportspersons
only, and watchers-sportspersons.
Generally, the tables reveal a wide
variation in the proportional distribution
of watchers with respect to sportsperson
classification.
Table 3 reveals that the proportional
distribution of away-from-home
watchers between non-sportspersons
and sportspersons varies substantially
by state. At 80% Mississippi has the
highest sportsperson share. Minnesota,
Oklahoma, and Georgia follow with 63%,
59%, and 57% sportspersons. Altogether,
sportspersons account for 50% or more
of away-from-home watchers in 14 states.
States with the least sportsperson
share of away-from-home watchers are
California, Delaware, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts, with 21%, 26%, 26%, and
28% respectively.
Table 3. Away-from-Home Wildlife Watchers by Sportsperson Classification and
State Where Activity Occurred: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
All Away-from-
home
Non-
Sportspersons
Percent
of All Sportspersons
Percent
of All
AK 292 141 48% 151 52%
AL 276 145 53% 132 47%
AR 211 94 45% 117 55%
AZ 638 446 70% 191 30%
CA 2270 1804 79% 466 21%
CO 838 493 59% 346 41%
CT 279 207 74% 73 26%
DE 96 71 74% 25 26%
FL 1503 889 59% 614 41%
GA 411 178 43% 234 57%
HI 141 88 62% 53 38%
IA 310 141 45% 169 55%
ID 451 277 61% 174 39%
IL 638 347 54% 291 46%
IN 474 262 55% 212 45%
KS 297 147 49% 150 51%
KY 385 192 50% 193 50%
LA 314 151 48% 163 52%
MA 542 388 72% 154 28%
MD 533 315 59% 218 41%
ME 419 261 62% 158 38%
MI 884 479 54% 405 46%
MN 634 233 37% 400 63%
MO 738 357 48% 381 52%
MS 131 ** ** *105 *80%
MT 511 327 64% 184 36%
NC 588 327 56% 261 44%
ND 93 58 62% 35 38%
NE 186 102 55% 84 45%
NH 425 291 68% 134 32%
NJ 688 484 70% 204 30%
NM 387 263 68% 124 32%
NV 309 201 65% 107 35%
NY 1330 860 65% 469 35%
OH 898 529 59% 370 41%
OK 403 166 41% 237 59%
OR 910 625 69% 285 31%
PA 1279 786 61% 493 39%
RI 98 54 55% 44 45%
SC 331 157 47% 174 53%
SD 181 80 44% 101 56%
TN 683 413 60% 270 40%
TX 1002 566 56% 435 44%
UT 530 266 50% 263 50%
VA 772 517 67% 255 33%
VT 307 210 68% 97 32%
WA 1065 700 66% 365 34%
WI 1000 527 53% 473 47%
WV 219 134 61% 85 39%
WY 416 233 56% 182 44%
*Estimate based on small sample size.
**Sample Size too small to report data reliably
8 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
Table 4 reveals that the distribution of
around-the-home watchers between
non-sportspersons and sportspersons
also varies substantially by state. At 61%
Wyoming has the highest sportsperson
share. Alaska, Utah, and Montana follow
with 56%, 48%, and 48% respectively.
At 15% California has the lowest
sportsperson share for around-the-home
watchers just as it does for away-from-home.
Massachusetts, Nevada, and
Rhode Island all follow with 22%.
Table 4. Around-the-Home Wildlife Watchers by Sportsperson Classification and
State of Residence: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
All Around-the-
Home
Non-
Sportspersons
Percent
of All Sportspersons
Percent
of All
AK 221 98 44% 123 56%
AL 925 588 64% 337 36%
AR 762 455 60% 308 40%
AZ 1,063 822 77% 241 23%
CA 4,853 4,111 85% 742 15%
CO 1,127 729 65% 398 35%
CT 859 631 73% 228 27%
DE 168 119 71% 48 29%
FL 2,635 1,617 61% 1,017 39%
GA 1,305 781 60% 524 40%
HI 120 71 59% 49 41%
IA 939 601 64% 338 36%
ID 333 196 59% 137 41%
IL 2,379 1,512 64% 866 36%
IN 1,727 1,161 67% 566 33%
KS 718 433 60% 285 40%
KY 1,234 769 62% 466 38%
LA 802 520 65% 282 35%
MA 1,443 1,126 78% 316 22%
MD 1,261 905 72% 357 28%
ME 501 345 69% 156 31%
MI 2,361 1,564 66% 797 34%
MN 1,932 1,024 53% 908 47%
MO 1,514 941 62% 572 38%
MS 576 357 62% 219 38%
MT 341 178 52% 163 48%
NC 1,815 1,321 73% 494 27%
ND 125 66 53% 59 47%
NE 469 301 64% 168 36%
NH 445 319 72% 126 28%
NJ 1,640 1,205 73% 435 27%
NM 449 335 75% 114 25%
NV 300 234 78% 66 22%
NY 3,442 2,528 73% 914 27%
OH 2,653 1,905 72% 748 28%
OK 997 588 59% 409 41%
OR 1,204 838 70% 366 30%
PA 3,371 2,365 70% 1,005 30%
RI 237 184 78% 53 22%
SC 1,045 652 62% 393 38%
SD 241 140 58% 101 42%
TN 1,655 1,134 69% 520 31%
TX 2,930 1,835 63% 1,095 37%
UT 515 267 52% 248 48%
VA 2,105 1,484 71% 620 29%
VT 280 181 65% 99 35%
WA 2,105 1,452 69% 653 31%
WI 2,076 1,310 63% 766 37%
WV 492 345 70% 147 30%
WY 154 60 39% 93 61%
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 9
Figure 2 displays a graphical
representation of sportspersons’ share
of away-from-home wildlife watchers
by state.
Figure 3 displays a graphical
representation of the sportsperson
share of around-the-home wildlife
watchers by state.
Table 5 indicates similarly that the share
of recreationists that are watchers-sportspersons
varies dramatically by
state. Those that participate in both
activities ranges from a low of 16%
for California to a high of 47% for
Montana. Other states with notably low
proportions of watchers-sportspersons
are Massachusetts, New Jersey, and
Arizona, which all have less than 20%.
At the other extreme, Minnesota and
Utah both have greater than 41%
watchers-sportspersons.
􀀦􂘀􀀬􂰀
􀀮􂸀􀀭􂴀
􀀨􂠀􀀩􂤀
􀀤􂐀􀀥􂔀
􀀭􂴀􀀤􂐀
􀀴􃐀􀀸􃠀
􀀯􂼀􀀫􂬀
􀀫􂬀􀀳􃌀
􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀
􀀳􃌀􀀤􂐀
􀀭􂴀􀀴􃐀 􀀮􂸀􀀤􂐀
􀀷􃜀􀀹􃤀
􀀣􂌀􀀯􂼀
􀀵􃔀􀀴􃐀
􀀩􂤀􀀤􂐀
􀀡􂄀􀀺􃨀
􀀮􂸀􀀶􃘀
􀀷􃜀􀀡􂄀
􀀣􂌀􀀡􂄀
􀀯􂼀􀀲􃈀
􀀫􂬀􀀹􃤀
􀀭􂴀􀀥􂔀
􀀮􂸀􀀹􃤀
􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀
􀀭􂴀􀀩􂤀
􀀶􃘀􀀴􃐀
􀀮􂸀􀀨􂠀 ���􂴀􀀡􂄀
􀀣􂌀􀀴􃐀 􀀲􃈀􀀩􂤀
􀀶􃘀􀀡􂄀
􀀷􃜀􀀶􃘀
􀀯􂼀􀀨􂠀
􀀩􂤀􀀬􂰀 􀀩􂤀􀀮􂸀
􀀮􂸀􀀣􂌀
􀀴􃐀􀀮􂸀
􀀳􃌀􀀣􂌀
􀀭􂴀􀀳􃌀 􀀡􂄀􀀬􂰀
􀀡􂄀􀀲􃈀
􀀬������������􀀡􂄀
􀀭􂴀􀀯􂼀
􀀩􂤀􀀡􂄀
􀀭􂴀􀀮􂸀
􀀷􃜀􀀩􂤀
􀀮􂸀􀀪􂨀
􀀧􂜀􀀡􂄀
􀀡􂄀􀀫􂭆
Figure 2. Percent Away-from-Home Wildlife Watchers Who Were also Sportspersons
< 30 percent
30–39 percent
40–49 percent
≥ 50 percent
􀀦􂘀􀀬􂰀
􀀮􂸀􀀭􂴀
􀀨􂠀􀀩􂤀
􀀤􂐀􀀥􂔀
􀀭􂴀􀀤􂐀
􀀴􃐀􀀸􃠀
􀀯􂼀􀀫􂬀
􀀫􂬀􀀳􃌀
􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀
􀀳􃌀􀀤􂐀
􀀭􂴀􀀴􃐀 􀀮􂸀􀀤􂐀
􀀷􃜀􀀹􃤀
􀀣􂌀􀀯􂼀
􀀵􃔀􀀴􃐀
􀀩􂤀􀀤􂐀
􀀡􂄀􀀺􃨀
􀀮􂸀􀀶􃘀
􀀷􃜀􀀡􂄀
􀀣􂌀􀀡􂄀
􀀯􂼀􀀲􃈀
􀀫􂬀􀀹􃤀
􀀭􂴀􀀥􂔀
􀀮􂸀􀀹􃤀
􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀
􀀭􂴀􀀩􂤀
􀀶􃘀􀀴��
􀀮􂸀􀀨􂠀 􀀭􂴀􀀡􂄀
􀀣􂌀􀀴􃐀 􀀲􃈀􀀩􂤀
􀀶􃘀􀀡􂄀
􀀷􃜀􀀶􃘀
􀀯􂼀􀀨􂠀
􀀩􂤀􀀬􂰀 􀀩􂤀􀀮􂸀
􀀮􂸀􀀣􂌀
􀀴􃐀􀀮􂸀
􀀳􃌀􀀣􂌀
􀀭􂴀􀀳􃌀 ������􀀬����
��􂄀􀀲􃈀
􀀬􂰀􀀡􂄀
􀀭􂴀􀀯􂼀
􀀩􂤀􀀡􂄀
􀀭􂴀􀀮􂸀
􀀷􃜀􀀩􂤀
􀀮􂸀􀀪􂨀
􀀧􂜀􀀡􂄀
􀀡􂄀􀀫􂭆
Figure 3. Percent Around-the-Home Wildlife Watchers Who Were also Sportspersons
< 25 percent
25–34 percent
35–39 percent
≥ 40 percent
10 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
Table 5. Participation in Wildlife-Related Recreation by Recreationist Type and State of Residence: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
All
Recreationists
Watchers
Only
Percent
of All
Sportspersons
Only
Percent
of All
Watchers-
Sportspersons
Percent
of All
AK 320 115 36% 79 25% 126 39%
AL 1,323 597 45% 358 27% 368 28%
AR 1,038 417 40% 260 25% 361 35%
AZ 1,296 859 66% 189 15% 248 19%
CA 6,873 4,387 64% 1,382 20% 1,104 16%
CO 1,518 839 55% 305 20% 374 25%
CT 996 665 67% 113 11% 218 22%
DE 220 126 57% 50 23% 44 20%
FL 3,857 1,699 44% 1,001 26% 1,157 30%
GA 1,932 796 41% 606 31% 530 28%
HI 195 81 42% 69 35% 45 23%
IA 1,212 632 52% 229 19% 351 29%
ID 507 201 40% 119 23% 187 37%
IL 3,148 1,641 52% 656 21% 851 27%
IN 2,179 1,265 58% 393 18% 521 24%
KS 942 451 48% 207 22% 284 30%
KY 1,547 844 55% 283 18% 420 27%
LA 1,326 497 37% 486 37% 343 26%
MA 1,726 1,205 70% 233 13% 288 17%
MD 1,546 975 63% 235 15% 336 22%
ME 607 351 58% 87 14% 169 28%
MI 2,950 1,625 55% 526 18% 799 27%
MN 2,388 951 40% 395 16% 1,042 44%
MO 2,010 934 46% 398 20% 678 34%
MS 851 318 37% 272 32% 261 31%
MT 438 159 36% 76 17% 203 47%
NC 2,330 1,348 58% 446 19% 536 23%
ND 228 58 25% 93 41% 77 34%
NE 623 315 51% 125 20% 183 29%
NH 506 331 65% 56 11% 119 24%
NJ 1,993 1,324 66% 299 15% 370 19%
NM 595 339 57% 124 21% 132 22%
NV 439 245 56% 105 24% 89 20%
NY 3,990 2,497 62% 466 12% 1,027 26%
OH 3,407 1,894 55% 639 19% 874 26%
OK 1,308 578 44% 266 20% 464 36%
OR 1,545 934 60% 259 17% 352 23%
PA 4,169 2,521 60% 647 16% 1,001 24%
RI 280 184 66% 38 13% 58 21%
SC 1,375 701 51% 296 22% 378 27%
SD 326 150 46% 75 23% 101 31%
TN 2,109 1,206 57% 403 19% 500 24%
TX 4,515 1,770 39% 1,427 32% 1,318 29%
UT 736 268 37% 164 22% 304 41%
VA 2,535 1,565 62% 367 14% 603 24%
VT 319 194 61% 32 10% 93 29%
WA 2,537 1,605 63% 303 12% 629 25%
WI 2,489 1,348 54% 330 13% 811 33%
WV 694 341 49% 177 26% 176 25%
WY 223 85 38% 51 23% 87 39%
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 11
This section compares the socioeconomic
characteristics of wildlife watchers and
sportspersons from several perspectives.
The aim is to show how socioeconomic
characteristics of different groups
or sets of recreationists differ from
one another. The comparisons made
in this section can best be explained
through the use of Figure 1. First,
the socioeconomic characteristics of
the set of all wildlife watchers are
compared to the characteristics of the
set of all sportspersons. In Figure 1
the group of recreationists in areas
A and C are compared to the group
of recreationists in C and B. This is a
simplistic comparison that ignores the
overlap or intersection of the two groups.
Second, the characteristics of those who
are watchers-sportspersons, area C, are
compared to those who are watchers
only, area B, and sportspersons only,
area A. The socioeconomic characteristics
addressed include the following:
population size of residence, Bureau
of Census geographic region, age, sex,
ethnicity, race, household income, and
education.
As will be shown below, an understanding
of the distinctiveness of the different
recreationist groups yields information
about how each will likely be affected
by ongoing demographic trends in the
U.S. such as population urbanization,
increasing average age, and minority
growth.
Comparison of Wildlife Watchers and
Sportspersons
Table 6 summarizes the socioeconomic
characteristics of wildlife watchers and
sportspersons. The first row in Table 6
indicates 31% of all U.S. residents 16 years
of age and older are wildlife watchers,
and 18% are sportspersons. Deviations
from this overall distribution yield
information about how socioeconomic
characteristics of wildlife watchers
differ from sportspersons. This overall
distribution is referred to as an “average.”
The discussion that follows addresses
each of the socioeconomic characteristics
presented in Table 6.
Population Size of Residence
The population size of residence is
measured in terms of metropolitan
statistical area (MSA). “The general
concept of a metropolitan . . . statistical
area is that of a core area containing a
substantial population nucleus, together
with adjacent communities having a high
degree of economic and social integration
with that core . . . Each metropolitan
statistical area must have at least
one urbanized area of 50,000 or more
inhabitants.”
Consequently, classification by MSA type
provides information on the population of
recreationist residences. The categories
of MSA listed in Table 6 indicate whether
the recreationist lived in a MSA of
various sizes or lived outside of a MSA,
which indicates a more rural residency.
The table indicates that the percent of the
population who participates (participation
rate) falls for both wildlife watching and
sporting activities as the population size
of residence rises. The participation rate
in wildlife watching falls from 41% for
those residing outside MSAs to 29% for
those residing inside MSAs. Similarly, the
participation rate in sporting activities
falls from 27% for those residing outside
MSAs to 16% for those residing inside
MSAs. Moreover, the rate also tends to
fall as the size of MSA increases.
When considering the change in the
participation rate between recreationists
residing outside MSAs and those inside
MSAs, it is important to note that the
proportional decrease is greater for
sporting activities. The participation rate
for sporting activities falls from 27% to
16%, which represents a proportional
change of -43%, compared to a -29%
change in wildlife watching.
Census Geographic Regions
The participation rate of both wildlife
watchers and sportspersons varies
substantially by geographic region.
The participation rate for both groups
is highest in the West North Central
region with rates of 43% and 29%
respectively. The lowest participation
rate for watching occurs in the West
South Central with 25%. The Middle
Atlantic and Pacific tie for the lowest
Part Two–Socioeconomic Characteristics
12 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
Table 6. Selected Characteristics of Wildlife Watchers and Sportspersons: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S.
Population
Wildlife
Watchers
Percent of
Population Sportspersons
Percent of
Population
Total All Persons 212,298 66,105 31% 37,805 18%
Population Size of Residence
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) 171,147 49,414 29% 26,564 16%
1,000,000 or more 112,984 29,724 26% 14,739 13%
250,000 to 999,999 41,469 12,880 31% 7,638 18%
50,000 to 249,999 16,693 6,811 41% 4,186 25%
Outside MSA 41,151 16,691 41% 11,241 27%
Census Geographic Region
New England 10,575 3,875 37% 1,504 14%
Middle Atlantic 29,806 8,740 29% 3,810 13%
East North Central 34,082 11,631 34% 6,400 19%
West North Central 14,430 6,206 43% 4,239 29%
South Atlantic 39,286 11,395 29% 6,957 18%
East South Central 12,976 4,514 35% 2,865 22%
West South Central 23,337 5,747 25% 4,924 21%
Mountain 13,308 4,619 35% 2,757 21%
Pacific 34,498 9,377 27% 4,349 13%
Age
16-17 7,709 1,678 22% 1,497 19%
18-24 22,234 3,051 14% 3,303 15%
25-34 35,333 8,869 25% 7,136 20%
35-44 44,057 14,939 34% 9,966 23%
45-54 40,541 14,491 36% 7,826 19%
55-64 25,601 10,326 40% 4,629 18%
65+ 36,823 12,752 35% 3,447 9%
Sex
Male 101,916 30,695 30% 28,462 28%
Female 110,381 35,409 32% 9,343 8%
Ethnicity
Hispanic 21,910 2,699 12% 1,743 8%
Non-Hispanic 190,388 63,409 33% 36,063 19%
Race
White 181,129 62,781 35% 35,300 19%
Black 21,708 2,029 9% 1,666 8%
Asian 7,141 654 9% 365 5%
All Others 2,320 641 28% 474 20%
continues
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 13
percent of sportspersons with 13%. While
the participation rate varies substantially
for both watching and sporting activities,
there is relatively more variation in
sporting participation.
Age
Participation rates for watching and
sporting activities vary substantially with
respect to age. The participation rate for
sporting activities is rather stable by age
categories, except for the recreationists
65 years of age and older. Beyond 64 the
participation rate for sporting activities
declines substantially. However, there
is a positive correlation with the rate of
wildlife watching by age. The percent of
the population who participates climbs
from 22% for those 16-17 to 40% for
those 55-64. It then declines to 35% for
those over 64, but overall the positive
correlation persists.
Sex
The participation rate for watching
and sporting activities also differ
substantially with respect to gender.
The rate of participation in watching is
relatively stable around 31% for both
males and females. However, for sporting
activities the participation rate of males
is substantially higher than that of
females.
Ethnicity
Hispanics have a substantially lower
participation rate than Non-Hispanics
in both wildlife watching and sporting
activities. 12% of Hispanics participate
in watching compared to 33% of Non-
Hispanics. Similarly, 8% of Hispanics
participate in sporting activities
compared to 19% of Non-Hispanics.
Race
The participation rate for both wildlife
watching and sporting activities is
substantially higher for Whites than
Blacks and Asians. While 35% of
Whites are watchers, Blacks and Asians
participate at a 9% rate. Similarly, the
participation rate of Whites in sporting
activities is 19%, while Blacks and
Asians participate at rates of 8% and 5%
respectively.
Annual Household Income
The participation rates of both watching
and sporting activities generally
increase as incomes increase. The rate
for watching climbs from 23% for those
with incomes of under $10,000 to 44% for
those with incomes of $75,000-$99,999.
Similarly, the rate for sporting activities
climbs from 9% for those with incomes
of under $10,000 to 25% for those with
incomes of $50,000-$99,999.
Education
The participation rate for watching
has a positive correlation with years of
education, whereas the participation
rate for sporting activities is positively
correlated over a portion of the range.
The rate for watching climbs from 22%
for those with 11 years of education or
less to 43% for those with 5 or more years
of college. The rate for sporting activities
climbs from 14% for those with 11 years
of education or less to 20% for those with
1-3 years of college, and then falls slightly
to 18% for those with 5 or more years of
college.
Characteristics of Different
Recreationist Groups
Rather than compare all wildlife
watchers with all sportspersons, this
section compares the socioeconomic
characteristics of the three different
groups of recreationists in Figure 1:
watchers only, sportspersons only,
watchers-sportspersons. In other
words it compares the socioeconomic
characteristics of those in regions A,
B, and C in Figure 1. Comparison by
type of recreationist reveals additional
information about how the composition of
wildlife recreationists will likely change
due to demographic shifts.
Table 6. Selected Characteristics of Wildlife Watchers and Sportspersons: 2001 – continued
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S.
Population
Wildlife
Watchers
Percent of
Population Sportspersons
Percent of
Population
Annual Household Income
Under $10,000 10,594 2,387 23% 978 9%
$10-$19,999 15,272 3,837 25% 1,831 12%
$20-$24,999 10,902 2,879 26% 1,659 15%
$25-$29,999 11,217 3,461 31% 2,000 18%
$30-$34,999 11,648 4,069 35% 2,349 20%
$35-$39,999 9,816 3,142 32% 2,186 22%
$40-$49,999 16,896 6,402 38% 4,116 24%
$50-$74,999 31,383 12,359 39% 7,893 25%
$75-$99,999 17,762 7,735 44% 4,413 25%
$100,000 or More 19,202 8,010 42% 4,521 24%
Not Reported 57,606 11,823 21% 5,858 10%
Education
11 years or less 32,820 7,201 22% 4,705 14%
12 years 73,719 21,154 29% 13,039 18%
1-3 years of college 49,491 16,013 32% 9,980 20%
4 years of college 34,803 12,603 36% 5,994 17%
5 years or more of college 21,464 9,133 43% 3,817 18%
14 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
Table 7. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Different Types of Wildlife-Related Recreationists: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
All Wildlife
Recreationists
Watchers
Only
Percent
of All
Sportspersons
Only
Percent
of All
Watchers-
Sportspersons
Percent
of All
Total All Persons 82,068 44,263 54% 15,963 20% 21,842 27%
Population Size of Residence
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) 60,876 34,312 56% 11,462 19% 15,102 25%
1,000,000 or more 36,087 21,348 59% 6,363 18% 8,376 23%
250,000 to 999,999 16,164 8,526 53% 3,284 20% 4,354 27%
50,000 to 249,999 8,625 4,439 51% 1,814 21% 2,372 28%
Outside MSA 21,192 9,951 47% 4,501 21% 6,740 32%
Census Geographic Region
New England 4,428 2,924 66% 553 12% 951 22%
Middle Atlantic 10,133 6,323 62% 1,393 14% 2,417 24%
East North Central 14,129 7,729 55% 2,498 18% 3,903 27%
West North Central 7,717 3,478 45% 1,511 20% 2,728 35%
South Atlantic 14,485 7,528 52% 3,090 21% 3,867 27%
East South Central 5,804 2,939 51% 1,290 22% 1,575 27%
West South Central 8,174 3,250 40% 2,427 30% 2,497 30%
Mountain 5,744 2,987 52% 1,125 20% 1,632 28%
Pacific 11,455 7,106 62% 2,078 18% 2,271 20%
Age
16-17 2,641 1,144 43% 963 37% 534 20%
18-24 4,963 1,660 33% 1,912 39% 1,391 28%
25-34 12,267 5,131 42% 3,398 28% 3,738 30%
35-44 19,033 9,067 48% 4,094 21% 5,873 31%
45-54 17,350 9,524 55% 2,859 16% 4,967 29%
55-64 11,926 7,297 61% 1,600 14% 3,029 25%
65+ 13,888 10,441 75% 1,136 8% 2,311 17%
Sex
Male 43,257 14,795 34% 12,562 29% 15,900 37%
Female 38,810 29,467 76% 3,401 9% 5,942 15%
Ethnicity
Hispanic 3,824 2,081 55% 1,125 29% 619 16%
Non-Hispanic 78,249 42,186 54% 14,840 19% 21,223 27%
Race
White 77,202 41,902 54% 14,421 19% 20,879 27%
Black 3,130 1,464 47% 1,101 35% 565 18%
Asian 882 517 59% 228 26% 137 15%
All Others 855 381 45% 214 25% 260 30%
continues
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 15
Table 7 summarizes the socioeconomic
characteristics of the different
recreationist groups. The first row
indicates 54% of all recreationists are
watchers only, 19% are sportspersons
only, and 27% are watchers-sportspersons.
As discussed for the tables above,
deviations from these percentages yield
information about how the different types
of recreationists differ from one another.
Population Size of Residence
Table 7 indicates that recreationists who
live outside MSAs are more likely to be
watchers-sportspersons than those who
live inside MSAs. 32% of recreationists
who live outside MSAs are watchers-sportspersons,
which compares to 25% of
those who live inside MSAs. There is also
an apparent negative correlation between
the size of MSA and the proportion of
watchers-sportspersons. The proportion
goes from a low of 23% for MSAs of one
million or more residents to 27% for
MSAs of less than a million.
Census Geographic Regions
The share of watchers-sportspersons
varies dramatically by geographic region.
The highest proportion occurs in the
West North Central Region with 35%.
The West South Central region follows
close behind with 31%. At the other
extreme are the Pacific Region with 20%
and New England with 22%.
If there is some conflict between the
resource management objectives of wildlife
watchers and sportspersons, then potential
conflict could be greater in regions with
a lower share of watchers-sportspersons.
A lower share of watchers-sportspersons
indicates fewer recreationists who desire
a management strategy that provides
for a desirable mix of both activities.
The individuals that participate in both
activities are likely to favor ��middle-of-the
road�� management practices. To be
sure, individuals who participate in both
activities will likely differ in their optimal
“mix” of management practices to satisfy
both interests, but they all will desire
preservation of resource amenities useful
for both. In the West North Central and
West South Central a relatively large
portion of watchers are also sportspersons
and vice versa. Alternatively, in the Pacific
region there is a substantially smaller
intersection in recreation practices. If it is
true that conflict is greater in regions with
a smaller intersection of recreationists, one
implication is that resource managers in
the Pacific region may have a more difficult
task of satisfying the desires of both.
Age
Age has a dramatic impact on the
type of recreation in which individuals
participate. The proportion of all
recreationists who are watchers only
is positively correlated with age. For
recreationists 18-24, only 33% are
watchers only. However, as age increases
this share climbs consistently up to 75%
for those 65 and older. Conversely, those
who participate in only sporting activities
fall from 39% in the 18-24 category to 8%
for those 65 and older.
Sex
37% of males are watchers-sportspersons,
which compares to only 15% of females.
Ethnicity
Hispanics are notably less likely than
Non-Hispanics to participate in watching
and sporting activities. The share of
watchers-sportspersons for Hispanics is
16%, while for Non-Hispanics the share
climbs to 27%.
Race
The results for race indicate some
noteworthy differences in recreationist
type. For sportspersons only, Whites
participate at notably lower rate
than the other races. Whites also
have a substantially higher share of
watchers-sportspersons. Compared
to the variation in sportspersons only
and watchers-sportspersons there is
relatively little racial variation in the
proportion of recreationists who are
watchers only.
Table 7. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Different Types of Wildlife-Related Recreationists: 2001 – continued
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
All Wildlife
Recreationists
Watchers
Only
Percent
of All
Sportspersons
Only
Percent
of All
Watchers-
Sportspersons
Percent
of All
Annual Household Income
Under $10,000 2,912 1,934 66% 525 18% 453 16%
$10-$19,999 4,749 2,918 62% 912 19% 919 19%
$20-$24,999 3,614 1,955 54% 735 20% 924 26%
$25-$29,999 4,327 2,327 54% 866 20% 1,134 26%
$30-$34,999 5,012 2,663 53% 943 19% 1,406 28%
$35-$39,999 4,120 1,934 47% 978 24% 1,208 29%
$40-$49,999 8,104 3,988 49% 1,702 21% 2,415 30%
$50-$74,999 15,564 7,671 49% 3,205 21% 4,688 30%
$75-$99,999 9,447 5,034 53% 1,712 18% 2,701 29%
$100,000 or More 9,620 5,099 53% 1,610 17% 2,911 30%
Not Reported 14,599 8,741 60% 2,776 19% 3,082 21%
Education
11 years or less 9,712 5,007 51% 2,511 26% 2,194 23%
12 years 26,766 13,727 51% 5,612 21% 7,427 28%
1-3 years of college 19,926 9,946 50% 3,913 20% 6,067 30%
4 years of college 14,986 8,992 60% 2,383 16% 3,611 24%
5 years or more of college 10,406 6,589 63% 1,273 12% 2,544 24%
16 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
Annual Household Income
There is some variation in the proportion
of recreationists who are watchers-sportspersons
at the very low end of the
income distribution. The lowest income
brackets have a notably lower share.
Those with incomes of less than $10,000
and $10,000-$19,999 have shares of 16%
and 19% respectively. This percent climbs
sharply for those with incomes of $20,000
or more.
Education
There is some variation in recreationist
type by years of education. The share of
watchers only increases sharply for those
with 4 years of college or more. Their
share climbs from around 50% for those
with less than 4 years of college to around
61% for those with more.
Implication of Demographic
Change on Wildlife Recreation
Under certain conditions, the
socioeconomic information discussed
above can be used to gauge the likely
effect of ongoing demographic trends
on participation in the different
types of wildlife recreation. If certain
assumptions hold, current demographic
trends have implications on the future
participation rate of individuals in
wildlife watching and sporting activities.
They also have implications about the
proportion of all recreationists who will
likely participate in both watching and
sporting activities.
Major Demographic Trends in the U.S.
There are several demographic trends in
the U.S. that will likely impact wildlife-related
recreation in the years ahead.
It is beyond the scope of this report to
analyze each trend in detail, but a short
summary is warranted.
The percent of the U.S. population living
in rural housing continues to fall. In 1960
approximately 30% of U.S. residents
lived in rural areas. This percent has
since fallen to 27% in 1970, 25% in 1995,
and 22% in 2000.2
The percent of the U.S. population of
Hispanic ethnicity is on the rise. In 1980,
6.4% of U.S. residents were Hispanic.
This percent has since risen to 9.0% in
1990 and 12.0% in 2000. It is expected to
rise to 14.6% by 2010.3
The percent of the population who are
of White and not of Hispanic origin
is declining. In 1980, 79.6% of U.S.
residents were White and not Hispanic,
and this has since fallen to 75.6% in
1990 and 69.5% in 2000. This percent is
expected to fall further to 67.3% by 20103.
Finally, there is the trend of an aging
population in the U.S., due to maturing
baby boomers. In 1990 the percent of
the population over 55 years of age was
20.9%. This percent rose to 21.1% in
2000 and 22.6% in 2005. This percent is
expected to continue climbing to 24.7% in
2010 and 28.9% in 20203.
Impact on Wildlife Watching and
Sporting Activities
Under the assumption of relative stability
in the participation percentages in Table
6 for population size of residence and
age, the demographic trends discussed
above provide some indication of how
the overall participation rate for wildlife
watching will change relative to that
of sporting activities. The assumption
of relative stability in the participation
percentages is best explained using an
example. Table 6 indicates that 35%
of the U.S. population 65 and over
participates in wildlife watching, 40% of
those between 55-64 participate, and 36%
of those between 45-54 participate. The
assumption is that these percentages
will not change, or if they do change,
they will change only slightly. This is
an important assumption to keep in
mind in the following discussion. There
may be reason to believe that this
assumption will not hold. For example,
Table 6 indicates that 9% of those 65 and
over participate in sporting activities.
However, advances in medical care and
nutrition continue to improve the health
of older Americans. Consequently, it is
possible that in the future a greater share
of people 65 and older will participate in
sporting activities.
If there are relatively stable participation
rates for population size of residence and
age, current demographic trends imply
that the overall participation rate for
wildlife watching will increase relative
to sporting activities. As discussed
above, the decline in participation
that occurs because individuals reside
inside an MSA as opposed to outside
is greater for sporting activities than
for wildlife watching. The implication
is that increased urbanization will have
a relatively greater impact on sporting
activities than on wildlife watching.
Additionally, the wildlife watching
participation rate is positively correlated
with age, and the participation rate
for sporting activities is negatively
correlated with age. Consequently, the
continued aging of the U.S. population
likely portends growth in wildlife
watching relative to hunting and fishing.
Impact on Share of Recreationists that
Participate in Both Wildlife Watching
and Sporting Activities
Current demographic trends also imply
that the share of recreationists who
participate in both wildlife watching and
sporting activities will likely decline. This
conclusion is based on an assessment of
how trends will affect those recreationists
that are represented in the “Watchers-
Sportspersons” column of Table 7, and
it could have important political and
resource management implications.
Essentially, changes in the share of
recreationists that participate in both
wildlife watching and sporting activities
indicate whether the population of
recreationists will become increasingly
united or divided. A smaller share of
participants in both activities indicates
that the composition of wildlife
recreationists will become increasingly
divided.
All of the demographic trends discussed
above portend increasing division of
wildlife recreationists. Table 7 indicates
that the proportion of those who are
both watchers-sportspersons falls as
age increases. Consequently, the aging
population of baby boomers suggests
that the share of all recreationists that
participate in both watching and sporting
activities will likely decline in the future.
Table 7 also indicates that the share
of watchers-sportspersons falls as the
population size of residence increases,
and the ongoing demographic trend is
one of increased urbanization. Hispanics
are substantially less likely to participate
in both watching and sporting activities
than Non-Hispanics, and the Hispanic
population is rapidly increasing. Lastly,
Whites are more likely to participate in
both types of recreation than all other
races taken together, and the White
population is growing slower than others.
2 “Factors Related to Hunting and Fishing
Participation Among the Nation’s Youth,”
Responsive Management (2003).
3 “Statistical Abstract of the United States
2004-2005,” U.S. Census Bureau.
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 17
This section examines wildlife recreation
spending by type of recreationist:
watchers only, sportspersons only, and
watchers-sportspersons. The analysis of
spending by type of recreationist differs
from the conventional analysis by type
of activity. Examining wildlife recreation
spending by type of recreationist reveals
that the majority of spending on wildlife
recreation is made by individuals that
participate in both watching and sporting
activities. This finding helps dispel the
notion that spending is made by two
separate groups of recreationists.
The 2001 FHWAR queried respondents
about their spending attributable to
wildlife recreation, and it distinguished
non-consumptive spending from
consumptive spending. In other words,
it distinguished spending made pursuant
to wildlife watching from that made
pursuant to either hunting or fishing.
In the published data tables of the
2001 FHWAR, these expenditures are
presented in detail. However, publishing
estimates by type of activity alone
conceals the substantial crossover of
recreationists from one type of activity
into the other. In a sense, estimates by
type of activity alone foster an impression
that the two types of recreationists
belong to separate cliques or factions.
However, the analysis presented above
indicates that this is clearly not the case,
as substantial crossover does occur.
Although not presented in the published
tables, data available from the 2001
FHWAR CD can be used to analyze
spending from numerous other
perspectives. Total wildlife-watching
expenditures can be apportioned between
sportspersons and non-sportspersons.
Total hunting and fishing spending
can be apportioned between those who
participate in wildlife watching and those
who do not. Average expenditures of
sportspersons who are wildlife watchers
can be calculated and compared to those
who are not. Average expenditures of
wildlife watchers who are sportspersons
can be calculated and compared to those
who are not. Total wildlife recreation
spending can be apportioned between
recreationists of different types. Table
8 and tables in Appendix D address
wildlife-recreation spending in every
perspective listed here. However,
this discussion is focused on the last
perspective, as it is the most instructive
in highlighting the interrelationship of
the different types of recreationists.
Figure 4 displays total wildlife-related
recreation spending in two ways. The
graph on the top displays spending by
type of activity. It indicates that 65%
of all wildlife recreation spending is
made pursuant to hunting or fishing
and 35% to wildlife watching. This is
the historical method in which spending
has been displayed. The graph on the
bottom displays spending by type
of recreationist. It indicates that
the majority of spending on wildlife
recreation is done by persons who
participate in both wildlife watching and
sporting activities. 57% of all recreation
expenditures are made by recreationists
in both “camps.” Expenditures made by
recreationists who participate in only
sporting activities or wildlife watching
are nearly equal and respectively
comprise 20% and 23% of all spending.
From this perspective, it is clear that the
majority of recreation spending is not
made by two mutually exclusive groups.
Table 8 presents spending by
recreationist type in greater detail.
Expenditures are categorized by type of
good purchased. “Hunting equipment”
includes purchases of rifles, ammunition,
and hunting dogs. “Fishing equipment”
includes purchases of rods, reels, tackle
boxes, and lures. “Auxiliary hunting and
fishing equipment” includes spending
made pursuant to either hunting or
fishing such as camping equipment,
clothing, and taxidermy costs. Wildlife-watching
equipment includes binoculars,
photographic equipment, film, bird food,
bird houses, etc. “Auxiliary wildlife-watching
equipment” is similar to
auxiliary hunting and fishing equipment
and includes camping equipment, tents,
Part Three–Expenditures by Type of Recreationist
USFWS/Debbie McCrensky
18 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
tarps, and backpacking equipment, but
the primary intended use of these items
was to support wildlife-watching activity,
not hunting or fishing. Special equipment
includes purchases of big ticket items
such as boats, campers, trucks, and
cabins that are primarily purchased for
use in wildlife-related recreation.
For trip-related expenditures, 60% is
attributable to watchers-sportspersons,
24% is attributable to sportspersons
only, and 16% is attributable to watchers
only. The relatively lower share for
watchers only is due to substantially
lower spending on “Other trip costs.”
Watchers only account for 4% of other
trip costs, and in the largest category
of expenditures within other trip costs,
boating costs, they account for only 1%.
The only category within other trip costs
where watchers only account for a higher
than average proportion of spending is
public land use fees, where their share
is 25%. This likely results from their
relatively high use of public parks that
charge admission fees.
Two-thirds of all spending on fishing
equipment and more than two-thirds of
all spending on hunting equipment is
attributable to watchers-sportspersons.
This is a potentially valuable piece of
information for manufacturers of hunting
and fishing equipment.
Almost two-thirds of wildlife-watching
equipment is attributable to watchers
only. This is generally in line with
the proportion of wildlife-watching
participants that do not participate
in sporting activities, which is seen in
Table 1.
In summary, there are items where
the proportional distribution of
wildlife recreation expenditures
differs from the 23%, 20%, and 57%
for all items presented in Figure 4.
Nevertheless, there is not one type
of good where spending from only
one of the recreationist categories
dominates all spending. Spending for
every good is attributable to more than
one recreationist classification, which
underscores the interrelationship that
recreationists have in the marketplace.
Figure 4. Expenditures for Wildlife-Related Recreation
(Total expenditures $108 billion.)
􀀤����􀁉��􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀀀􀀷􃜀􀁉􄤀􀁌􄰀􀁄􄐀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁃􄌀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀁘􅠀􀁐􅀀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁔􅐀􀁕􅔀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀀀􀁂􄈀􀁙􅤀􀀀􀀴􃐀􀁙􅤀􀁐􅀀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀀀􀀡􂄀􀁃􄌀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁔􅐀􀁙􅤀􀀀
􀀵􃔀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀀛􁬀􀀁􀄀􀀒􁈀􀀑􁄀􀀙􁤀􀀏􀼀􀀕􁔀􀀁􀄀􀁃􄌀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀀴􃐀􀁑􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁈􄠀􀀁􀄀􀀉􀤀􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁈􄠀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀀧􂜀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁈􄠀􀀊􀨀
􀀅􀔀􀀗􁜀􀀚􁨀􀀏􀼀􀀚􁨀􀀁􀄀􀁃��􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀��􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏��
􀀸􃠀����􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀀸􃠀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁈􄠀􀀁􀄀
􀀅􀔀􀀔􁐀􀀙􁤀􀀏􀼀􀀕􁔀􀀁􀄀􀁃􄌀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀀓􁌀􀀕􁔀􀀅􀔀
􀀖􁘀􀀕􁔀􀀅􀔀
􀀤􂐀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀀀􀀷􃜀􀁉􄤀􀁌􄰀􀁄􄐀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁃􄌀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀁘􅠀􀁐􅀀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁔􅐀􀁕􅔀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀀀􀁂􄈀􀁙􅤀􀀀􀀴􃐀􀁙􅤀􀁐􅀀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁃􄌀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀵􃔀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀀛􁬀􀀁􀄀􀀒􁈀􀀑􁄀􀀙􁤀􀀏􀼀􀀕􁔀􀀁��􀁃􄌀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁊��􀁐􅀀����􄼀
􀀴􃐀��􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁑􅄀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀀰􃀀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁚􅨀
􀀅􀔀􀀓􁌀􀀓􁌀���􀼀􀀓􁌀􀀁􀄀􀁃􄌀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀀸􃠀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀀸􃠀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀀰􃀀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁚􅨀
􀀅􀔀􀀓􁌀􀀕􁔀􀀏􀼀􀀖􁘀􀀁􀄀􀁃􄌀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀀸􃠀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀀎􀸀􀀴􃐀􀁑􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁑􅄀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀
􀀅􀔀􀀗􁜀􀀒􁈀􀀏􀼀􀀙􁤀􀀁􀄀􀁃􄌀􀁊􄨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀀒􁈀􀀐􁀀􀀅􀔀
􀀒􁈀􀀓􁌀􀀅􀔀
􀀕􁔀􀀗􁜀􀀅􀔀
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 19
Table 8. Expenditures for all Wildlife-Related Recreation by Recreationist Type: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands of dollars.)
All
Watchers
Only
Percent
of All
Sportspersons
Only
Percent
of All
Watchers-
Sportspersons
Percent
of All
Total, All Items 108,390,816 24,481,139 23% 22,153,608 20% 61,756,074 57%
Trip-Related Expenditures
Total trip-related 28,070,831 4,520,120 16% 6,755,896 24% 16,794,814 60%
Food and lodging, total 13,149,781 2,770,299 21% 2,843,705 22% 7,535,778 57%
Food 8,957,513 1,535,602 17% 2,094,846 23% 5,327,066 60%
Lodging 4,192,268 1,234,697 29% 748,859 18% 2,208,712 53%
Transportation, total 7,900,619 1,502,425 19% 1,679,980 21% 4,718,215 60%
Public 1,288,653 531,225 41% 201,928 16% 555,501 43%
Private 6,611,965 971,200 15% 1,478,052 22% 4,162,713 63%
Other trip costs, total 7,020,431 247,396 3% 2,232,212 32% 4,540,822 65%
Guide fees, pack trip or package fees 1,177,171 50,917 4% 338,945 29% 787,309 67%
Public land use fees 289,585 73,192 25% 63,950 22% 152,443 53%
Private land use fees 514,249 13,428 3% 133,710 26% 367,111 71%
Equipment rental 395,107 57,196 14% 104,546 27% 233,366 59%
Boating costs 3,042,802 38,025 1% 974,448 32% 2,030,328 67%
Heating and cooking fuel 205,249 14,638 7% 60,842 30% 129,769 63%
Bait 1,105,350 N.A. N.A. 444,396 40% 660,954 60%
Ice 290,917 N.A. N.A. 111,376 38% 179,541 62%
Equipment and Other Expenses
Total 80,319,985 19,961,019 25% 15,397,711 19% 44,961,260 56%
Hunting equipment 4,866,399 N.A. N.A. 1,437,191 30% 3,429,207 70%
Fishing equipment 4,640,715 N.A. N.A. 1,592,844 34% 3,047,872 66%
Auxiliary hunting and fishing equipment 2,627,686 N.A. N.A. 684,658 26% 1,943,028 74%
Wildlife-watching equipment 7,353,977 4,564,821 62% N.A. N.A. 2,789,158 38%
Auxiliary wildlife-watching equipment 716,899 319,264 45% N.A. N.A. 397,637 55%
Special equipment 44,288,116 10,446,204 23% 9,564,151 22% 24,277,764 55%
Magazines, books 639,936 177,021 28% 74,500 11% 388,415 61%
Land leasing and ownership 11,889,496 3,325,727 28% 1,536,556 13% 7,027,213 59%
Membership dues and contributions 1,435,465 674,276 47% 109,741 8% 651,448 45%
Plantings 699,309 453,706 65% N.A. N.A. 245,602 35%
Licenses, stamps, tags, and permits 1,161,988 N.A. N.A. 398,072 34% 763,915 66%
(Z) less than 0.5%.
N.A. Not Applicable
Note: “Hunting equipment” includes purchases of rifles, ammunition, and hunting dogs. “Fishing equipment” includes purchases of rods, reels, tackle boxes,
and lures. “Auxiliary hunting and fishing equipment” includes spending made pursuant to either hunting or fishing such as camping equipment, clothing,
and taxidermy costs. Wildlife-watching equipment includes binoculars, photographic equipment, film, bird food, bird houses, etc. “Auxiliary wildlife-watching
equipment” is similar to auxiliary hunting and fishing equipment and includes camping equipment, tents, tarps, and backpacking equipment, but the primary
intended use of these items was to support wildlife-watching activity, not hunting or fishing. Special equipment includes purchases of big ticket items such as
boats, campers, trucks, and cabins that are primarily purchased for use in wildlife-related recreation
20 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
Heretofore, this analysis has shown
that there are numerous wildlife
recreationists who participate in both
wildlife watching and hunting or fishing
in the same year: a third of all watchers
in 2001 participated in sporting activities,
and more than half of all sportspersons
in 2001 participated in wildlife watching.
Consequently, the notion of two mutually
exclusive groups of recreationists is
not tenable, and it is more difficult to
distinguish two groups of recreationists
than one might suppose.
The distinctiveness of two separate
groups is even more obscure when
recreation activity is considered for more
than the span of one year. If someone did
not participate in hunting or fishing in
2001, but did in prior years, should he or
she still be considered a sportsperson?
If so, how many years of inactivity in
hunting or fishing must pass before one
is no longer considered a sportsperson?
These are certainly subjective questions
that elicit different responses. Some
may consider a recreationist a viable
sportsperson if he or she participated in
hunting or fishing within the last three
years; whereas, others may consider
participation within the last five years
to be sufficient. Fortunately, data from
the 2001 screen phase of the FHWAR
can be used to satisfactorily answer this
question from different perspectives.
The 2001 FHWAR was conducted in two
phases by the U.S. Census Bureau. The
first was the screen phase in which the
Census Bureau interviewed a sample
of 80,000 households nationwide to
determine who in the household had
fished, hunted, or engaged in wildlife-watching
activities in years 2000 and
before, and who planned to engage in
those activities in 2001. In most cases,
one adult household member provided
information for all household members.
The second was the detailed interview
phase in which those selected as likely
anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers
from the screen were given detailed
interviews about their recreation
activities in 2001. Heretofore, all the
data discussed in this analysis was from
the detailed interview phase because
it provides the most information about
recreationist activities in 2001. The screen
data could not have been used because
respondents answer only a limited set
of questions about prior activity and
expected future activity, and it has a
longer recall period, so it is more prone to
suffer from recall bias. However, because
the screen does query respondents about
sporting activities for years prior to
2000, it is uniquely suited to analyze the
relationship between wildlife watching in
2000 and prior sporting activities.
Figures 5 and 6 display the distribution
of away-from-home and around-the-home
watchers based on prior sporting
activities. The distributions presented
rely on only that portion of the screen
sample that answered questions about
his or her own activities. All observations
where the survey respondent was
queried about the activity of another
household member were excluded for
reliability considerations. Lastly, those
who are considered watchers in each
figure indicated that they participated in
wildlife watching in the year 2000.
Figure 5 indicates that the proportion
of all away-from-home watchers who
are also sportspersons is substantially
greater than the 44% previously indicated
in Table 1 if historical sporting activities
are considered valid criteria for one’s
inclusion into the set of all sportspersons.
It indicates that within two years prior to
the time of the survey, 57% of all away-from-
home watchers hunted or fished.
More than half of all respondents who
indicated that they had participated in
away-from-home wildlife watching in
2000 also participated in either hunting
Part Four–Historical Fishing and Hunting
Participation of Wildlife Watchers
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 21
or fishing from 1998 to 2000. The
proportion of away-from-home watchers
who participated in hunting or fishing
within 5 years of the time of the survey
goes up to 63%. Lastly, and perhaps most
surprising, Figure 5 indicates that 80% of
away-from-home watchers have hunted
or fished at some point.
Similarly, Figure 6 indicates that
the proportion of all around-the-home
watchers who are considered
sportspersons is substantially greater
than the 32% previously indicated in
Table 1 if historical sporting activities
are considered valid criteria for one’s
inclusion into the set of all sportspersons.
It indicates that within the two years
prior to the time of the survey, 44% of all
around-the-home watchers either hunted
or fished. The proportion of around-the-
home watchers who participated in
hunting or fishing within 5 years of the
time of the survey goes up to 49%. Lastly,
Figure 6 indicates that 72% of around-the-
home watchers have hunted or fished
at some point.
Given the findings here that more
than 60% of away-from-home and 49%
of around-the-home watchers have
participated in either hunting or fishing
within 5 years from the time of the
survey, this analysis supports the notion
that it is more difficult to distinguish
two separate groups of recreationists if
respondents’ prior sporting activities are
taken into account. It underscores just
how interrelated the different types of
wildlife recreationists really are.
Figure 6. Distribution of Around-the-Home Wildlife Watchers by
Hunting and Fishing Activity
Figure 5. Distribution of Away-from-Home Wildlife Watchers by
Hunting and Fishing Activity
􀀒􁈀􀀐􁀀􀀅􀔀
􀀑􁄀􀀘􁠀􀀅􀔀
􀀖􁘀􀀅􀔀
􀀕􁔀􀀗􁜀􀀅􀔀
􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀒􁈀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀓􁌀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀔􁐀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀕􁔀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀖􁘀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀗��􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀
􀀯���􀁆􄘀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀����􀄀􀀩􂤀􀁖��􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀
􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀧􂜀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀
􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀����􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀧􂜀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀀮􂸀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀
􀀵􃔀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀀖􁘀􀀁􀄀􀀺􃨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀀢􂈀􀁈􄠀􀁐􅀀
􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀧􂜀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀
􀀸􃠀􀁊􄨀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀀔􁐀􀀎􀸀􀀖􁘀􀀁􀄀􀀺􃨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀧􂜀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀
􀀸􃠀􀁊􄨀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀀓􁌀􀀁􀄀􀀺􃨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀒􁈀􀀘��􀀅􀔀
���􁈀􀀓􁌀􀀅􀔀
􀀕􁔀􀀅􀔀
����􁐀􀀔􁐀􀀅􀔀
􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀒􁈀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀓􁌀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀔􁐀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀕􁔀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀖􁘀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀 􀀗􁜀􀀑􁄀􀀆􀘀
􀀯����􀁆􄘀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀
􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀧􂜀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀
􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀���􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀧􂜀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀀮􂸀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀
􀀵􃔀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀀖􁘀􀀁􀄀􀀺􃨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀀢􂈀􀁈􄠀􀁐􅀀
􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀧􂜀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀
􀀸􃠀􀁊􄨀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀀔􁐀􀀎􀸀􀀖􁘀􀀁􀄀􀀺􃨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀩􂤀����􅘀􀁏􄼀��􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁���􀀧􂜀􀁊􄨀􀁔���􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀
􀀸􃠀􀁊􄨀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀀓􁌀􀀁􀄀􀀺􃨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
22 The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers
Figures 5 and 6 indicate that the
majority of both around-the-home and
away-from-home wildlife watchers have
participated in sporting activities at some
point. However, these tables alone do not
assess the increase in the probability that
someone will be a wildlife watcher given
he or she has hunted or fished in the past.
This section presents a wildlife-watching
regression model to estimate this effect.
To appropriately assess the increase
in probability that someone will be a
wildlife watcher if he or she has hunted
in the past, the regression model should
also include several other variables
that are significantly correlated with
wildlife-watching participation. Table 6
indicates that there are numerous other
variables that are likely correlated with
wildlife watching. The participation
rate appears to vary with respect to all
the variables that appear in Table 6:
population size and geographic region of
residence, age, gender, ethnicity, race,
income, and education. Logit regression
is an appropriate method to assess the
change in the probability in watching
participation attributable to all of
these variables. Logit regression helps
eliminate the confounding effects of cross
correlation among these variables. For
example, the participation rate increases
as income increases and as age increases.
However, income also tends to increase
with age. This cross correlation acts to
conceal the independent impact that age
and income have on participation. By
using regression, the effect of each on
the probability of wildlife watching can
be isolated more effectively. Additionally,
regression permits assessment of
whether the correlations of the different
variables with wildlife watching are
significant. In other words it permits
an assessment of the probability that
the observed relationship occurred by
chance.
The logit regression used here models
the logarithm of the odds ratio that
an individual participated in wildlife
watching in 2000 as a function of a set
of explanatory variables or hunter
characteristics. All wildlife watching,
both around-the-home and away-from-home,
is grouped together in this model.4
The logit regression is described by the
following two equations.
(1)
(2)
where:
Pi = Probability that the ith individual
wildlife watched in 2000 (i.e., “yes”)
Xi = Vector of explanatory variables
β = Vector of coefficients to be estimated
Variables
The explanatory variables that are
used in the logit regression model
are contained in Table 9. Many of the
variables are nominal variables. Each
nominal variable used in the logit has a
base or reference case. The reference
case is given a value of 0 in the estimated
equation. Consequently, the calculated
coefficient for the reference case is
embodied in the coefficient for the
intercept term. The reference case for
each nominal variable is given by the
first level for each in Table 9. Thus, the
reference case is as follows:
■ Neither Hunted nor Fished from
1995-2000
■ White race
■ Not Hispanic
■ Male
■ Lives in MSA of more than
one million people
■ More than 5 years of college education
■ Never married or widowed
■ Lives in Pacific or Middle Atlantic or
East North Central regions5
Every variable value other than the
reference case has a coefficient. Each
of these coefficients indicate the change
in the log odds ratio from equation 2
that occurs when the value of the
respective nominal variable is different
than the reference case. For example,
since “Neither Hunted nor Fished from
1995-2000” is the reference case for
HUNT_FISH, each of the other levels
(Both Hunted and Fished, Fished Only,
Hunted Only) will have a coefficient. The
coefficient for “Fished Only” will indicate
the change in the log odds that results
because a wildlife watcher in 2000 went
fishing but not hunting from 1995-2000.
The same will also be the case for the
“Both Hunted and Fished” and “Hunted
Only” coefficients. These results for the
HUNT_FISH variable are the primary
focus of this analysis.
Results
The results from the logistic regression
procedure are presented in Table 10.
A negative number in the Estimation
column indicates that the variable in
question has a negative relationship with
the likelihood that one participated in
wildlife watching in 2000. Additionally,
the Pr > ChiSq column indicates the
probability that the relationship between
each variable and the target variable
(likelihood of wildlife watching) occurs
by chance. A Pr > ChiSq of less than
0.05 is considered strongly statistically
significant, while a value of less than 0.1
is considered significant. An example will
serve to explain the particulars of Table
10. The table indicates that the estimate
for “Fished Only” is 0.975. Since the
base case for HUNT_FISH is “Neither
Hunted nor Fished,” the positive result
indicates that, all other things equal,
individuals that went fishing but not
hunting from 1995-2000 were more likely
to participate in wildlife watching in 2000.
Part Five–Wildlife-Watching Participation Model
4 Independent models for away-from-home
and around-the-home watching were also
estimated by the author, and the results are
available by request.
5 These regions were grouped together
because differences in likelihood of wildlife
watching between them were found
insignificant.
The Relationship between Wildlife Watchers, Hunters, and Anglers 23
Additionally, the Pr > ChiSq indicates a
probability of ChiSq
Intercept -1.558 0.070 490.7